Anarchists' anti- socialist hatred is souring movement

Revolutionary Socialists | 07.11.2000 17:09

Antagonistic attitude of anarchists towards socialists at Hackney demo and elsewhere (inc IMC) suggests they may be the new stalinists...

Hackney: A revolutionary socialist was treated in a most atrocious manner by an anarchist, who pushed some paraphernalia into his face for no reason. Hoping it was a misplaced joke the comrade responded "that was nice of you" whereupon the antagonist replied "No, I'm trained to attack Trotskyists".
What are the A bunch up to ? These kind of obsessive, axe- grinding tirades are now common place, there are reports of socialists being beaten up by them in Prague, the ANL or SWP place a demo notice and report on these pages only to be greeted with a rant about Marx, Lenin and (particularly) Trotsky. Add to this the IMC insistence that freedom of speech is a bourgeois left over, and well, it looks like they're looking to claim the stalinist inheritance p.d.q. We ask you, whose damn side are you on here ? This is no way for leftists to treat each other. As if the anarchists are so bloody innocent here: they deny the 'party', but their party is the tightest of the lot, they condemn the workers state, but their state will be euphemistically termed 'new age community' or somesuch.
The anarchists are in a pickle: they need mass support from the working class, but they cant stand them ! They are socially and politically bourgeois elitist throughout, even if of the left variety, and they learned their prep- and public- school courses too well to forget them completely. Of course they will be hostile to any group which is trying to organize the working class AS a class, instead of as an anti- hairstyle, anti- fashion parade.

Revolutionary Socialists

Comments

Hide the following 31 comments

A definite tendency hghlighted

07.11.2000 18:17

Considering the way Trotsky was attacked and accused in his own lifetime, falsely and for things outside his control much of the time, I feel a lot of unease with this "Trot Bashing".
Pick-axes at dawn ?

R . Ruther

sadness

07.11.2000 18:47

it is with sadness that i read yet more complaints from a person in one group of people about another group of people who are roughly supposed to be working on similar sides.

on the other hand if intimidation or physical abuse occured between demonstrators at the Hackney demonstration then that's a shame (though it's nothing new). It doesn't surprise me that this might of happended. I also saw a man (i don't know if he was a revolutionary socialist though) having a go at some younger demonstrators (though i don't know if they were anarchists of any description) and ordering them to go and listen to a speach in an irate manner when they were dancing in the road.

i think there are tensions between peoples beliefs, with prehaps the biggest being between those who work in hierarchical party political organisations (like the swp you mention above) and those who work in non-hierarchical loose groups (which i think are probabaly the anarchists).

i was heartened yesterday by what happended in hackney - or at least what i thought i saw happen - which was people from a range of beliefs coming together to stand up for themselves and others.

i thought one of the main things about prague and the other big anti-capitalist demonstrations was that they were only possible through groups with different agendas and beliefs working together. surely this is the way forward?

your posting above shows a lot of anger and hate towards the group you call the anarchists (i do think we must be careful with our labels though). i did not hear about socialists being beaten by anarchists in prague, but if it happened then that is very sad.

i don't understand all of your references but you do sound very confrontational, and i wonder if this emotion may be used in a more productive way.

oh well, maybe humans are just supposed to fight each other.

Learn from history

07.11.2000 18:59

Comment to the Anarchists giving the Socilaists a hard time.
Have you ever read the history of the Spanish Civil war ?

Andy

Reply to our 'Revolutionary Socialist Friend

07.11.2000 19:24

Well I wondered how long it would be before A 'revolutionary socialist' (lets'presume a Socialist Workers Party member) started getting the hump with Anarchists! This article is a symptom of the desperate state the revlutionary left is in at the moment. Having completely ignored J18, then trumpeting themselves as the 'anticapitalist movement' (sic) at their annual Marxism bash this summer, they then proceeded to attempt to stitch up the S26 action planned by INPEG in Prague at the meetings prior to S26. Thankfully their boring plan to march everyone around the police perimeter outside the IMF/WB conference centre was thankfully taken over by people who had more constructive things in mind such as closing down the conference!! I'm a working class Anarchist Hackneyite who attented the demo outside the Town Hall last night, as on most of these occasions I have run a gauntlet of SWPers shoving papers in MY face! Lets not be sidetracked by one idiot most anarchists and activists are serious, and to call us middle class, pulic school educated with weird hairdos is the same crap we hear from politicians and cops.If the author does not like the political leanings od indymedia, I suggest they go away and set up something similar with a revolutionary left bias. But isn't that what the 'Socialist Worker' is for?

Mick
mail e-mail: shayite @ madasafish.com

It was them wot started it !

07.11.2000 19:25

Can it really be that modern day anarchists are justifyng attacking their fellow travellers on the basis of Spain 1936, or even Russia in 1921 ? I thought the anarchists advise not to become enslaved to outdated ideology ?
To take the Spain example, the anarchists attempt at a utopia in Barcelona was a conceit; when it came to fighting, typically in Malaga, they were routed- even the Stalinists did better in Madrid, largely because the Moscow command link broke down, freeing them up a bit. Trotsky considered neither camp sufficient; only in the struggle of continuing the revolution could it win through, not by closing it down (Stalin) or pretending it was complete (anarchists).
Anarchists cannot defy the laws of humanity, of politics. What is a party ? An organization to ensure that political decisions are transmitted and carried out, thats all.
What is a state ? A social catergory comprising different classes in compromise. Lenin had no illusions about it. Indeed he said:
WE DO NOT STAND FOR THE STATE. WE AFFIRM THE NEEDS OF INTER NATIONALISM ARE HIGHER THAN THE STATE.
Hardly the words of a bigot or power monger, I should say.

Revolutionary Socialists

not too difficult to understand

08.11.2000 12:57

>Anarchists cannot defy the laws of humanity, of politics.

fundamental central tennet of the PHILOSOPHY of anarchism is the "only authority is the self". the concept of "laws of humanity" is the conciet, and false, there are no laws of humanity, radical change has happened in history - e.g. from dark ages to rennaisance, and now it is much like the dark ages again, do not restrict humanity with unimaginative dead end ideas.

>What is a party ? An organization to ensure that
>political decisions are transmitted and carried out, >thats all.

political decisions to favour the party are inflicted on the rest, a way of oppressing minorities.

>What is a state ? A social catergory comprising >different classes in compromise.

A psychological construct to seperate the people of the world, restrict their movement, manage them....fighting wars for profit. (a power structure to maintain power in the hands of the elite)

>Lenin had no illusions about it. Indeed he said:
>WE DO NOT STAND FOR THE STATE. WE AFFIRM >THE NEEDS OF INTER NATIONALISM ARE HIGHER >THAN THE STATE.

inner nationalism is restrictive.

>Hardly the words of a bigot or power monger, I should >say.

I think so.

anarchists are not responsible for other anarchists and no-one has power over the rest. co-operation and mutual support regardless of boundaries. Even the extremely conservative world of science and philosophy now agrees that self-management of systems made of smaller self-managed systems is the universes most efficient system, not party, not nation.

think smart.

james
mail e-mail: safetyj@hotmail.com

anarchists expose their ideology

08.11.2000 19:49

The previous comment suggests that " self managed systems are the most efficient". This, I daresay, is precisely the euphemistic term for the state anticipated by "new age community". What an indictment !
Nobody has refuted the charge that anarchists, by attacking Trotsky and condemning freedom of speech, are fast becoming the new stalinists.

Hadrian

Time to wise up!

08.11.2000 20:16

I am saddened to hear the sectarian nature of this debate. I am a member of the SWP and it is not right that the anti capitalist movement should be torn apart in such a petty manner. If we are divided then the Right wing press will make a mock out of us. Its time to bloody unite! And if this sectarian shite is not stopped then both anarchists and socialists will lose support.

As for Anarchists abusing people on the hackney demo that is fucking ridiculous. We in the SWP don’t push your leaflets back in your face.

Its time to grow up in the left and get it sorted privately than in the public demonstrations. It is playing into the hands of the right wing!

Dan
mail e-mail: dan@marxist.co.uk
Homepage: www.clubi.ie/swp

The revolution will not be bolshevised!

08.11.2000 23:03

What is this "anarchists VS socialists" shit? The anarchist and socialist movements are one and the same. The only people we oppose is the authoritarian left like the SWP, who are not and have never been part of our movement.

Lemming
mail e-mail: lemming@grandtheftcyber.com
Homepage: http://www.grandtheftcyber.com

interesting. it's the reverse in America

09.11.2000 08:09

i looked at the uk site because the only things on the usa and global (what a joke!) sites are from the stupidest election in american history, and this caught my eye.

i don't know from europe, but in the united states it's usually anarchists who are assaulted and/or threatened by socialists (bob avakian and the revolutionary communist party are a notable bunch of jerks).

in seattle a year ago, many "non-violent" protesters quite violently came after anarchists who had broken GAP and Niketown windows.

in washington dc on april 16 i made the unfortunate aquaintance of an old socialist who stood in front of me as i returned from a march and began shouting, "why don't you anarchists do anything for people? you rich white kids are just hypocrites!" this got me a bit because i was in a teaching program for inner-city philadelphia and was the dead broke son of a single-mom. it was other anarchists who jumped in, stopped the shouting and worked out the differences.

throughout the summer when actions flared up at the republican and democratic party conventions here in the usa, anarchists were the target of police actions, media misrepresentations, and even attacks by other protesters.

of course, these misrepresentations and attacks have been aimed at anarchists throughout history. they are obviously going to have an impact, and bring a reaction by some anarchists. it only takes so many hits before you get tired of it all.

it's a matter of authority, and yeah, pushing leaflets in someone's face is rude, but a basic operating principle of anarchism is that one's rights extend only as far as another's begin. arguments for a socialist vanguard party deny this principle, deny freedom and natural rights. it is an authoritarian impulse that should be opposed however possible, although it's just as easy to become what you oppose.

in the balance, maybe socialists should rethink their own use of authority before they cry foul.

spina

Moaning Revolutionary Socialists

09.11.2000 11:13

What a load of moaners! and this too from a crowd who specialize in anoying people. If they are not haranging people by selling their papers as they come out of their colleges, or the subway, they are shouting their rants in the bars and on the corners. This according to them is 'being with the workers' they are here going on about class and it just shows their real insecurities. Workers reflect the diversity of political opinion, and because they are not organised as an anarchist party(!) does not mean they do not think that way.

Lets face it, we are not going to agree on a common politics here, that is not the point, we have different ideas of what is to come. Most anarchists and socialists get on fine, they know their differences and work together positively. The problem with the vanguard parties is that they are so sure they are right that they want to take over any movement as soon as its formed. They are arrogant enough to think we need them to lead us, and this is where the antagonism comes in.

I could ask for a bit more honesty but don't see the point - this is the way they are trained and we just have to ignore them and get on with the struggle.

Georgio
mail e-mail: georgio@ziplip.com

Dear revolutionary socialist,

09.11.2000 15:02

I really have to comment on this as it strikes me saying when the anl or swp post something on this site they are 'greeted with a rant about Marx, Lenin and(particularly) Trotsky' is simply untrue. It seems to me that it's more your sort of postings that seem to go on about M/L/T all the time - not that I'm against such type of discussions, let me make that clear. But perhaps you could be a bit clearer instead of ranting off on your stalanist hunt.

By the way I agree with Georgio and Dan when they say we should sort this stuff out.

jed

anarchist sophism

09.11.2000 16:13

We tried to draw attention to some observations by Lenin on what the priorities of the Russian revolution were. The anarchist attempt to dissect it betrays a sophist pattern of thinking, whereby the author twists the quotation (indeed misquoting it) to say the very opposite of what it clearly means. This kind of thinking is typical of what is learned at a public or prep school.
Anyway, we are not connected with the SWP but we want to defend them: all they do is put their case and sell you a paper if you're interested; they do NOT attack people. But why do we tolerate them when they turn up at demos ? Well, to coin the phrase, THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE !
Anyway...
The problem with anarchism is that it wants to wish away class antagonisms, sincerely in most cases. Its understandable, for class society isnt very nice. But They want to subordinate 'class' to 'humanity' which, Unfortunately, doesnt work: the ruling class have subordinated humanity to classs, and only struggling against capitalism ON THAT BASIS will overthrow it. Proudhon was most vague about the merits of property (rather like Jesus on mercantilism) and he ended up supporting the forerunner of modern dictators, Louis "Napoleon". Oddly enough, the USSR erected a statue to Bakunin (but never to Trotsky) perhaps because his pan slavism and Russophilism neccessarily implied a strong state, regardless of what he may have wished for. It cant be denied: dissolve class relations and you can only end up with that state, much as Stalin's.

R Socialists

Unite or fall apart!

09.11.2000 20:40

Anarchists and socialists can work together, in Belfast the S26 collective was made up of the SWP and anarchists. We both raised funds to send each other to Prague. I don’t care where this bloody feud is coming from it has to be healed.

I would just like to ask, maybe naively, but why is the SWP such a hate figure for the anarchists? Why is it that we are treated with disgust over in England? Those people that fight inwards won’t win any fights or revolutions. Bickering is not worth it, it takes to much energy from the movement that can overthrow capitalism.

Basically it’s not fucking worth it! Nobody will join a fractured movement because they see that it is not worth their energy.

What organisation is revolutionary socialist affiliated to? Also I disagree with “Revolutionary socialists” idea that a classless society will bring about Stalinism. The Stalinist system was not at all classless, and he is walking into a bear trap by saying so. Stalin made a new ruling class out of the bureaucracy with the Soviet Millionaires.

Dan
mail e-mail: dan@marxist.co.uk
Homepage: www.clubi.ie/swp

Swine Without Pearls (SWP)

10.11.2000 09:16

It's better to suck and fuck then squander your youth on pseudo-intellectual arrogant Marxist dogma babble!

John Major

Basics, basics, _always_ basics!

14.11.2000 18:02

The fundamentals that make it possible to feel good about exploiting others can be seen in the way we talk about our differences.

Poor history (I didn't know Trotskyists were responsible for the collapse of the democratic defense in Spain), poor logic, sophistic arguments, back-stabbing, slander ... our lives under capitalism have tooled us well to sabotage any coherent attack against the ruling class. And our lives under capitalism have left us with only the most basic tools with which we can build a set of relations based on collaboration and respect ... democracy in action.

So fine, let's look at what we do, and how we dispute ... let's look to see who is pessimistic about human nature, who is willing to cut corners and deceive, who is given to power-plays and manipulation.

The movement to build democracy will be our experience of collaboration. I'm sure I'm not alone in already having discovered substantial bases for reasonable hope.

We built the world ... it's up to us to save it, or not.

From the ground up!

hfx_ben

SWPer sectarianism

15.11.2000 10:58

I suggest the Revolutionary Socialist comrades read the current issue of Socialist Review - the theoretical organ of the SWP - to understand just who is responsible for sectarian attacks within the anti-globalisation movement. Here we find an article by veteran SWP hatchet man - sorry, that should be theoretical guru - Pat Stack vehemently attacking anarchists and re-running over the old historical disputes from Bakunin to Kronstadt and repeating all the usual lies and historical distortions.And of course coming up with the old tried and failed solution that the only way to victory for the international proletariat is under the leadership of the revolutionary party of which he himself happens to be a leading member. So the leadership likes to give out to it's idealistic new members that it is the horrible anarchists who are sectarian and stopping the SWP building a rainbow coalition new world. But at the same time it poisons that movement by it's own vicious sectarianism and opportunism and struggle to control the movement. Don't believe me - Just read Comrade Stack in your own SocialisT Review comrades. He has not forgotten the lessons of Kronstadt - neither should we!

Ret Marut
mail e-mail: asgwrn@yahoo.co.uk

What You Should Know About the ISO/SWP?

16.11.2000 21:37

Every trot should check out...

What YouShould Know about the ISO.

http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html

It deals alot with the standard anarchist vs. trotskyist debate, as well as alot of dirt about the various parties (like the UK SWP), and survivor stories. :)

Flint
Homepage: http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html

Socialist / Anarchist Debate

20.11.2000 13:30

As a member of the Working Class I have read this debate with bemusement. There seems to be a consesus that events such as Prague , Seatle and disputes with local councils have some revolutionary significance. That "socialist" groups are involved in adovocating such reformist events indicates a dangerous, delusional, and misguided trend within such organisations. Ultimatley leading adherents into a an ideological impasse.

Seatle and Prague was fantastic for there iconaclasm but no more. They involved disparate groups with different aims, some advocating a return to "small" capitalism. The apotheosis of such events ,on both sides, has declined into this verbal feud which was as inevitable as the scramble for supporters and prominence of ideals.

This site however is a fantastic medium for such debates and an alternative view from the mainstream media.Excellent

Nigel
mail e-mail: nodgedeb@aol.com
Homepage: none

Kind of IMC to give this matter

21.11.2000 19:55

some airing. we hope the matter is now in the past. still puzzled why anarchists are quite so anti- marxist, and while nobody will insist on you following an ideology you dislike, please remember the democratic imperative.

R Socialists

Anarchists' anti- socialist hatred is souring

25.11.2000 15:56

Those so called 'anarchists' are not anarchists but morons. After all, Trotsky was an anarchist. That is what happenes when idiots are 'brainwashed' by the mainstream media.

M. Madacky
mail e-mail: madacky@yahoo.com

Dump Old thought!

28.11.2000 18:05

Anarchist and Socialist still think..old ideologies we'll free them from the chains of greed! Comrades, its high-time we united our forces and formed a new front to combant social injustices being fed to the masses on a daily basis. Hacking tools of capitalism and shaming the idiots should be the way foward.

I think socialist are helping the system to milk the populace. Meanwhile the anarchist are running out of coppers to piss on!

Er, let's take the intifada in cyberspace!

Joram
mail e-mail: Joram@geek.com

unite and fight!

09.12.2000 10:46

a few points I'd like to add to the debate on this page:

-I have to agree with some of the above in saying that there is too much sectarian fighting going on. There are lots of vital issues that have to be discussed, but too much of what discussion there is comes down to personal attacks. I don't understand this hatred there is for the SWP. To call it an authoritarian organisation is ludicrous, come along to some meetings and see for yourself the respect given to all. The national conference was full of instances of debate between students who were new members and people who are on the central comittee, and both treated the other with respect.

-on demonstrations, democratic socialism works! disorganised, spontanious action might sound lovely, but it leads to individuals getting there heads kicked in by the pigs. When people group together, and someone takes the lead knowing people will work together, it is possible to acheive much, much more.

-Nice also showed, however, that activists from many different denominations can work together well. I was fighting along side revolutionary socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and basque seperatists. there might be lots of differences between our politics, but when I'm being tear-gassed, I'm more interested in what we've got in common. lets fight the bastards, rather than each other!

olie
mail e-mail: oliebrice@hotmail.com

SWP

16.12.2000 18:21

The SWP expects its members to support Labour at the next election : this is reason enough to hate the organisation. The SWP is a farce.

anarchist/libertarian socialist

no it doesn't

17.12.2000 12:07

The above post, claiming that the SWP wants its members to vote labour, is simply crap. The SWP is playing a major role in the building of the Socialist Alliance, which has already done well in local elections around England and Scotland, beating the Tories in hackney Wick and the Lib Dems in Preston.

there is defintaely loads of room for disagreement for with various SWP policies, and I have a number of ongoing arguments with organisers, but at least get your facts straight about what they are doing before you attack them for it.

Reading this site, at times you could be forgiven for thinking that the majority of Anarchists consider their main current enemy to be Socialism, rather than Capitalism, and visa versa with Socialists.

olie
mail e-mail: oliebrice@hotmail.com

Problems are to be solved

20.02.2001 15:34

To suggest the SWP as a whole are a right off is im my opinion, htough I believe in a non-hierachical society and therfore don't want a potentially new elite taking over the rein's of power. I also must say I disagree with their tactics of showng their paper at every conceivable opportunity. I disagree with their recruitment tactics and I dislike some of the ways they hijack events. Having said that I also have met and have spoken to good grassroots activists from the SWP who have also not condoned these tactics except hte hierachy one. None the less they are after all a mixture of people right across the spectrum of society and shouldn't be fought physically. Let's fight with what the Zapatista's say they have for their weapon WORDS!

Sceptic

socialism/syndicalism?

22.02.2001 13:48

can anyone tell me what exactly the difference is between anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary socialism? i can't see any difference. why don't some of you people actually try listening to what the "other side" is saying and you'll realise your differences are due to misunderstandings and semantics.

whoateallthepies?
mail e-mail: fascist_pig@the-police.com

Been there done that

23.02.2001 12:41

This whole debate (as some of the comments have pointed out) has been had before in history - lets not make the same mistakes twice.

Basically Marx fought bakunin (and others like proudhon) in the International which weakened it till it collapses. Marx's revolution eventually happened whereas Bakunin's didn't, but Bakunin's predictions for how socialism would develop into authoritarain socialism came true in the USSR.

There are lots of socialisms and lots of anarchisms, tied together by general themes. Both have good points and bad points, there's nothing to be gained by fighting about them (physically or verbally) but everything to be gained by constructive dialogue between the two sides.

Its true that for now we can work together, but post revolution we can't if we haven't sorted out the core of our differences beforehand, so lets talk not bicker?

good book on marx versus the anarchists in the international is 'Karl Marx and the Anarchists' by P. Thomas

NoBigDam
Homepage: www.narmada.org

Factions and Friction do not help

27.02.2001 15:44

Any self respecting anarchist should have read "what is communist anarchism" - this states (like most of you have been saying) That they are one and the same thing with a few minor details to be debated. Therefore if lefties like you or me are to get anything done we most work together for the common cause. look at the doctors in communist russia - they got paid a pittance but they chose the job for the greater glory of the state and society. Surely this is an ideal which all anarchists and communists strive towards wethter in autocracy or in a non-governmental system.

TCM

The SWP and the Labour government

21.03.2001 16:56

I have been involved in many activities where anarchists, communists, socialists, whatever have worked together very effectively and let's hope that unity continues to grow. Unity, however, is usually based on agreeing a few basics and - call me niave if you want - I would have thought one of these basics was not supporting the present British government.

The fact is that the SWP do support the current Labour government. Earlier this year they stated that "We still prefer a labour victory to a tory (or for that matter liberal democrat) one, and in marginal seats make it clear that we want to see the tories beaten." - in other words, we will not stand against labour where it might hurt them and we want labour to win.

It's the SWP's support for the Labour Party (and my experience of what that means in practice) rather than any esoteric debate about socialism v anarchism that leads me to mistrust them.

Colin
mail e-mail: colin@webname.com

RE: SWP and the Labour Party

22.03.2001 18:15

The comment made by Colin is completely untrue. Perhaps some older members may have found it difficult to accept what has happened to the Labour Party, but there are no true socialists who support Labour. THe SWP are supporting socialist candidates across the country - Socialist Alliance in England and Wales and the Scottish Socialist Party in Scotland - in the upcoming elections and see no overall difference between a labour or tory vote. Although the SWP does not believe in the parliamentary system, they are making this move in order to show people there is an alternative, that the left has not died.

loobie loo